2006 Free Agent Pitchers Revisited

by andeux on Sep 28, 2006 4:29 PM PDT

The signing of Esteban Loaiza last November was one of Billy Beane's most surprising and controversial moves. Most thought that $7 Million per year was way too much for a team with a small budget to be paying for a pitcher with such a mixed track record, while a minority suggested that, with equally mediocre pitchers signing for even more, it could actually prove to be a bargain.

With Loaiza having apparently made his last start of the regular season, I thought it would be a good time to look at how the year's crop of free agent pitchers performed.

Contract 2006 Performance
Yrs $Mil/yr IP ERA
Kevin Millwood 5 12 209 4.52
Tim Hudson 4 12 218 4.86
AJ Burnett 5 11 135 3.98
Jarrod Washburn 4 9.5 187 4.67
Matt Morris 3 9 208 4.98
Jeff Weaver 1 8.5 167 5.79
Kenny Rogers 2 8 202 3.79
Esteban Loaiza 3 7 151 4.84
Paul Byrd 2 7 172 4.87

I included Hudson because 2006 would have been his first year of free agency, though he signed his contract extension with Atlanta a full year early.

Only two of the nine pitchers managed to put up an ERA below 4. Kenny Rogers looks like the only real bargain, with the lowest ERA and one of the cheaper and shorter-term contracts. (Yeah, yeah, monkeyball, we know). Next was A.J. Burnett, but he was close to the top in salary and missed nearly half the season to injury.

Six of the nine pitchers, including Hudson and Loaiza, had an ERA around league average, somewhere between 4.50 and 5.00. Of these, Loaiza and Byrd were by far the cheapest, though, like Burnett, Loaiza missed a significant amount of time to injury.

The biggest disappointment (for the team who signed him and their fans, at least) was Jeff Weaver, who had an ERA of nearly six between Anaheim and St. Louis. The fact that his deal was for only one year prevents it from being a total disaster, but there was still a significant opportunity cost in the innings and dollars wasted on such poor performance.

Surprisingly, even after his horrible start, Loaiza so far has been the third-best "bargain" of the nine pitchers, after Rogers and Byrd. That really says more about how expensive free-agent pitching is than it does about Loaiza's performance. And whether it will remain true depends, of course, on the remaining years of the contract.

Poll

What do you expect from Esteban Loaiza in 2007-8?

Several more traffic arrests. Pass the radar detector.

6 votes

The batting practice pitcher we saw in April. That contract still sucks.

4 votes

The Cy Young candidate we saw in August. Beane is a super-genius!

11 votes

200 Innings/year of consistent league-average performance. Good value signing.

170 votes

Two more years of Jekyll and Hyde inconsistency. Pass the antacid.

86 votes

277 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Boy, I wish we could combine poll options

He'll end up somewhere between the 200 IP and the Jekyll/Hyde comparisons.

Thing to remember about the Byrd contract, he got his $7 million annual after Loaiza got his deal. Byrd could have been had for less if he had signed before Loaiza. By the same token, it's possible that Loaiza could have made even more money if he had waited until the market had thinned itself out a little more.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 28, 2006 4:32 PM PDT reply actions

I agree, I would have combined them

by OaklandSi on Sep 28, 2006 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions

make that 3 votes for the combination plate

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 28, 2006 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions

I wanted to break it up

Polls with options of "Great," "Horrible," or "Somewhere in Between" are usually not too interesting; the middle choice is just too obvious.

Almost all pitchers have at least a few great outings and a few terrible ones in their records, but Loaiza has always seemed particularly hard to get a handle on - a journeyman career, followed by a near Cy Young 2003, a Van Poppelesque 2004, a very good 2005, and then what we saw this year. I wanted to get a sense of whether people thought the wild swings in performance would continue, or whether he would stay healthy and become a bit more predictable.

Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Sep 28, 2006 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Loaiza post '07

When 2007 is over I think Loaiza will have better numbers than he had this year, but they won't quite be at the level of saying he was a good bargain.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 28, 2006 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Great post

And it happens to be the topic (at least a part of it) of my most recent FSN Bay Area column.

http://fsnbayarea.com/blogView.jsp?bcId=286&blog=15

It's funny that the three big moves that Billy made this offseason were a huge part of that patented second half run the A's always seem to have.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Sep 28, 2006 4:34 PM PDT reply actions

Here's the rub...

Do the A's dive back into the FA waters to find another SP. That wouldn't be necessary if Harden could stay healthy but... yeah. It's not like Oakland can really bet on that.

Haren, Loaiza and Blanton should give the A's a solid nucleus to build around. Komine, Windsor, Williams, Saarloos, Halsey or (for those who like to hold their breath) Meyers should be able to step up as the 5th SP. But I think it would be a stretch to ask any two of those players to become solid rotation additions next year.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 28, 2006 4:40 PM PDT reply actions

I'd be a little concerned about even one

Our options for a 5th starter next year suck. I think they're fine for a temp work, but I'd hate to see our numbers with what will likely be a revolving door. If Harden or anyone else goes down and we're stuck with 2 of them, there goes the bullpen and their goes our chances.

by DMOAS on Sep 28, 2006 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions

gaudin

doesnt get a shot at starting next year?

"Mommy and Daddy are going to take a nap before the baseball game starts..."

by Devyn on Sep 28, 2006 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think so

Nor does he deserve one in my opinion. Neither his 1.46 WHIP or 40/34 BB/K ratio suggests that he's ready for an expanded role. It's not a question of stuff or even command, I think his entire problem is make-up. He doesn't trust his stuff and until he starts to do so he needs to be sheltered.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 28, 2006 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions

That would make his WHIP...

better than Blanton's, and in the Zito/Loaiza range....

by BleacherDave on Sep 28, 2006 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Blanton's actually had success

as a big league SP. Gaudin has bombed every time he's been given a chance. I think it's more likely that Blanton can return to his previous form rather than expect Gaudin to improve next year. Chad has potential and I hope the A's push him to improve, but his only real success at the MLB level has been as a reliever.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 28, 2006 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Guadin is 23 years old

He was making starts at the tender age of 21 for the DRays and spent his 22 age in the minors with Toronto. I think he could be a dominant starter given another chance, and i think he'll get that chance next spring and will win out. We don't really have a huge need for a 3rd righty set-up man, it's a luxury, but we dont absolutely need it. What we do need is some consistency behind our core starters and i think Guadin's continued maturation will cement a spot for him.

Let's not forget that a ton of those walks came in the beginning of hte year when he was shuttling back and forth between sacto and oakland and before he came into his own. The future is very very very very bright for Chad.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin, Seattle Mariners

by Helloooo 1st on Sep 28, 2006 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree, but with one caveat:

Gaudin will not make it as a starter with two pitches, both hard (fastball, slider). He needs to add a changeup or splitter.

My hunch: The A's focus on adding a changeup for 2007 and give Chad the leading shot at the #5 spot in the rotation. But with just the two pitches, I don't think he can make it.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Sep 28, 2006 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree the potential is there

The numbers he has put up as a AAA SP support the idea that he can be a SP in the bigs. But the problem is his head. He falls in love with his slider and seems unwilling to challenge big league hitters with his fastball. Until he changes that mindset he will not be a succesful big league starting pitcher.

But you're wrong about the walks. Here are his BB/K splits for the season.

April: 2/1 2.2 IP
May: 10/14 15 IP
June: 9/4 12 IP
July: 6/7 12 IP
August: 6/4 9.2 IP
September: 7/4 11 IP

There was some marginal improvement, but his BB/IP rate remained sub-standard throughout the season.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 29, 2006 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm definitely worried about a fifth starter

next year. If Harden goes down again, a rotation of Haren/Blanton/Loaiza/Saarloos and Windsor/Gaudin/Williams/whoever is not going to cut it.

I'd like to see the A's sign Mark Mulder to a Frank Thomas-type deal, depending on how his rehab goes over the winter. Amazingly, I think it's very possible he'll still command a 3 yr/30M contract anyway, but it's worth investigating.

"The first night, we were right there," Bradley said. "All we needed was a couple of touchdowns, and we would have had them."

by jeepers on Sep 29, 2006 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions

byrd and loaiza

both may have been injured this year, but byrd is much more of an injury risk than loaiza.

i haven't paid any attention to byrd this year, but just looking at the numbers now, loaiza had a much better year despite the similar ERAs.
loaiza's numbers are pretty impressive considering what they were before he went on the DL. he seemed to give up about four home runs a game, yet he's only allowed 17 this year whereas byrd has allowed 25. opposing hitters were hitting around (possibly over) .350 against him at one point, it's now down to a somewhat respectable .286 (.309 for byrd).
loaiza has a lower WHIP, a better k/9, and the walks were surprisingly close.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Sep 28, 2006 4:51 PM PDT reply actions

Caw! Caw!

andeux, any speculative thoughts on (a) whether Beane intend/ed to deal Loaiza Y2/3, and (b) Loaiza's potential value as trade bait Y2/3?

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 28, 2006 4:51 PM PDT reply actions

Pure speculation

I was one of the folks who was sure that Zito would be gone within a week when we signed Loaiza, so I can't claim to know with any certainty what Beane was intending. My guess: Loaiza will be back for all (or at least as long as the A's are in contention) of next year. As grover mentions above, with Zito leaving we already have one hole and another question mark in next year's rotation, and only middling prospects to try to fill them. The following year, I'd assume, would depend on what happens with this next one (Harden's health, whether Gaudin or Windsor proves viable, etc.)

As for Loaiza's trade value, I wouldn't expect him to fetch a top prospect, but if he continues to be an average pitcher, he certainly has some value. Just look at some of the contending teams' rotations, and ask yourself if you think the Mets, Cardinals, or Yankees would give up something to have Loaiza instead of Oliver Perez, Jeff Weaver, or, uh, whoever the Yankees' 4th starter is, right now.

Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Sep 28, 2006 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions

certainty, schmertainty!

I want my baseless, irresponsible speculation!

All good thoughts. I'd kind of expect Loaiza to be next year's Zito: potentially dealt at the deadline if we're woefully out of contention, but not otherwise.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 28, 2006 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions

My .02 on this question

I think Beane would have been more than willing to shop Loaiza in the coming offseason if some combination of Harden staying healthy all year, Meyer returning to form, Windsor performing well, Jimmy Shull shooting through the system had happened.

Alas, that never happened.

I don't see how he can shop Loaiza before the start of the year. Maybe at mid-season, but doubtful before then.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Sep 28, 2006 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions

I' m something of a Mets fan

so I should point out that Oliver Perez and Loaiza are totally different pitchers at totally different points in their career; and most Mets fans are happy with Omar Minaya for acquiring Perez.

Oliver Perez is 24. 2 years ago, he put up a Cy Young caliber season. 2.98 ERA, 3.31 FIP, 231 Ks, 81 BBs in 196 IP. All the Mets gave up for Oliver Perez was Xavier Nady. Xavier Nady is a league average journeyman. The Mets are happy to have essentially bought themselves a good pitching prospect.

A more apt comparison would be Trachsel and Loaiza.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Sep 29, 2006 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions

A Loiaza in hand is worth 2 Byrds in a Bush League

"the reason why hitting the ball on the "sweet spot" of the bat feels so good is that the ball is contacting at the bat at a vibrational node." - salb918

by McFood on Sep 28, 2006 5:11 PM PDT reply actions

no talking about Bush

If you really want to, though, you can discuss them in the diary where we're discussing Oasis.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 28, 2006 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions

The price of mediocrity

Nice retrospective. It'd be interesting to juxtapose the above with the names on the '07 FA pitching crop.

So the average deal for big names starters last year was 3.2 years at $9.3 million per, to yield 183 innings pitched at a 4.70 ERA clip. Mediocrity has its price...a high one...and in that light Loaiza's deal looks pretty good for the A's. Even better when the going rate jumps more this offseason.

The Green and Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Sep 28, 2006 5:32 PM PDT reply actions

isn't Loaiza's contract backloaded?

I forget by how much -- but the last year, especially, may be more in line with the going market rate by that point.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 28, 2006 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes but

The $7 million andeux uses is the average. E-Lo gets $5 then $6 then $7 mill per year '06-08, plus a $3 mill signing bonus. Oh, and an A's option at $7.5 in '09. So even at '06 prices the Loaiza "beats the market" with mediocre production the rest of the way. And as prices will rise, he'll be an even better deal...unless he goes Russ Ortiz on us.

This of course assumes unfettered payroll; to the extent his price trades off with other parts the A's might acquire instead, he becomes less a good deal for Oakland...but a more valuable trade lure to others.

The Green and Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Sep 28, 2006 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions

It's all about VORP.

And the data up top tells us that Loaiza was, indeed, decent Value Over a Replacement Pitcher.

I suspect that situation will only become more clear as the seasons roll on, and the Burnetts and Ryans of the game command even bigger contracts.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Sep 28, 2006 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Hey, wait a second ...

"2006 Free Agent Pitchers" matches neither the scansion nor rhyme of "Highway 61."

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 28, 2006 6:03 PM PDT reply actions

D'oh

Would "Free Agent Pitchers of the Lowlands" be better?

Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Sep 28, 2006 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions

or "Play, FAs, Play"?

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 29, 2006 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions

we should get jason marquis

and take this whole "value the undervalued" thing to its logical conclusion...

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Sep 28, 2006 6:16 PM PDT reply actions

Duke

Next year I'd like to see Duke get a shot at starting. I know there's been discussion that his stuff isn't good enought to go through the lineup more than once, but that was from a couple years ago and now that he's more matured and confident, and knows the league better, I think he could do it.

by sslinger on Sep 28, 2006 6:47 PM PDT reply actions

Agreed

by BleacherDave on Sep 28, 2006 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Disagreed

Duke out of bullpen = bad bullpen. Duke into rotation = not a significant increase in rotation strength to counter the loss in the 'pen.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin, Seattle Mariners

by Helloooo 1st on Sep 28, 2006 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions

With Duke's back

no way he is a starter, we can rarely even use him in back to back games for 1 inning. I love Duke but he is not durable enough to make him a starter.

by china bob on Sep 29, 2006 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

by OaklandSi on Sep 29, 2006 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions

he's definitely got the mojo ...

... but in addition to agreeing with your other respondents, I also think that Nico's thoughts on Gaudin are apposite as well -- Duke would probably need one more pitch to be successful as a starter.

Confidence- and control-wise, I think Duke right now is where Gaudin should hopefully be in another year or two. (Gaudin's obviously got better raw "stuff," so he may have a higher ceiling.)

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 29, 2006 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions

For next year

I like the idea of trying to acquire another starter via trade. Vazquez is one name I'd like to see mentioned.

If not that, then I like the idea of moving either Gaudin or Duke to the rotation.

A man amongst boys, Towering and imposing, One very Big Hurt

by Tim J on Sep 29, 2006 12:10 PM PDT reply actions

I'm going to be very curious

about what the payroll situation will be next year if the A's make a run deep into the playoffs. The A's are pretty far into the black, money-wise, right now, and a deep post-season run will only make that better. I bet the team could spend $75M next year and still at least break even.

"The first night, we were right there," Bradley said. "All we needed was a couple of touchdowns, and we would have had them."

by jeepers on Sep 29, 2006 12:24 PM PDT reply actions

yes, but ...

... can they count on being able to commit to $75M+ in '08 and beyond as well? B/c a $75M commitment for '07 would almost surely necessitate that -- and there's no guarantee of being able to shed the more expensive (or higher cost-to-performance ratio) salaries that would make room for the consequent increases.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 29, 2006 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions

in other words ...

... the A's can control their cost certainties; but can they control their revenue certainties?

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Sep 29, 2006 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions

The ballpark's the answer to that question.

Meaning whether or not they will have to redirect revenue to make that happen. The worst-case scenario I can see excluding the ballpark is revenues remaining flat. Baseball makes more money every year.

"The first night, we were right there," Bradley said. "All we needed was a couple of touchdowns, and we would have had them."

by jeepers on Sep 29, 2006 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions